Some ramblings and drivel from me on draft success but there are a few factors that can affect draft success vs. failure. The draft system of college players vs. academy players can make it difficult to assess the talent level and NFL fit.
The overall structure of the team, starting from ownership and all the way through the entire organization will have an affect. Specifically, having alignment on GM, coaches, scouts, etc will make it a lot easier to do a good job assessing fit. Part of problem is also stability, particularly with the coaching staff. Given the very high turnover of coaches (and GMs), having a good plan for talent identification and development can be difficult. For example, when QB Jason Campbell was drafted by Washington, he had different coordinators every year in college and then three different coordinators in Washington early in his career. That's a lot of development potential that could've been stifled. Coaching turnover and systemic changes can lead to success, but it can also lead to recent draft picks losing their way on their current team. Jonathan Vilma had won defensive rookie of the year with the Jets as the middle linebacker in a 4-3 defense. But then the Jets hired Eric Mangini, who wanted to run the 3-4 defense. Vilma was not a good fit for that defense and he was traded away to the Saints. The Jets did fine without him, but it's an interesting question as to whether or not the pick was a success or failure for the team. Head coaches have to adapt and adopt different coaches with different systems, but having a long-term plan at the top helps (after all, coordinator turnover is a part of the game). But when GMs, head coaches, and coordinators are constantly moving in and out, it becomes hard to build anything properly.
The quarterback position is the most scrutinized as it's the important (and expensive) position. The basic development model is to draft a young QB, and while on his rookie contract, load up the team with talent to support him. This allows the team to have a chance to be successful, for the quarterback to develop properly, and for the good usage of the salary cap. When the quarterback gets his long-term contract extension, the team knows that future cap space will take a hit, and thus, they'll have less flexibility in keeping and bringing in top tier talent to help. But hopefully by that point, the quarterback has developed to a level that he can elevate others, and not rely on having expensive talent everywhere to keep up. Once you have your long-term option at QB, you have to be more creative with free agency, draft picks, and trades. You know your QB can elevate the players around him, so you don't necessarily need top picks and expensive free agents to get production. It becomes a two-way street of matching perhaps underutilized talent with a QB that can make others better. It definitely makes drafting easier, as you can find hidden gems that can work with the QB. Case in point, the recent articles touting the Pittsburgh Steelers' success in finding WRs:
Mike Wallace (3rd round), Emmanuel Sanders (3rd round), Antonio Brown (6th round), Martavis Bryant (4th round), JuJu Smith-Schuster (2nd round), Diontae Johnson (3rd round) and now Chase Claypool (2nd round). James Washington (2nd round) could still have a role to play. No first round picks there. Impressive.
But what's the common thread? It's Ben Roethlisberger and Mike Tomlin. It's stability at the ownership level down to the coach but also the QB. Now imagine if Mason Rudolph was the quarterback for all of these guys, and he was getting a different head coach and OC every 2 years. I don't think people would be as excited by the Steelers' WR talent evaluation as those guys would never be as successful. As far as offensive talent evaluation goes, the quarterback, like the staff above him, has a huge role to play. Guys like Davante Adams, Jordy Nelson, Rob Gronkowski, Julian Edelman, Antonio Gates, etc aren't first rounders either. Didn't hold back their offenses that's for sure. There's talent and ability there of course, but fit with the franchise QB makes them smash hits. Teams that lack stable QB play will also find it difficult to have draft success on offense as their QB is unable to unlock the potential of their WRs/TEs (and OLs/RBs may not look as good as they could).
But how do teams even find QBs in the first place? They're important, and they make drafting/free agency easy for the team, and they can even make non-elite coaches and organizations look like geniuses. But finding them is tough, and teams will need to scout players for the system they play in, injuries, and ability/production in a crazy college environment.
-System (focused on QBs)
For any position, evaluating the college talent and the system they play in and assessing how they fit into the pro team is an absolute must. For QBs, it's the ultimate goal of a team. But college football is complicated. There are 120+ FBS teams (the highest division of college football), broken into several conferences (of which the Power 5 conferences, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC have by far the most highly-rated talent coming out of high school). Below that, there's the FCS, Division II, Division III, and other lower divisions. These teams are a lot more varied in the systems they have and type of schemes they run. Some teams play much closer to traditional NFL teams, but others can be very different. Given the massive talent disparity in college football (and even among the Power 5 schools), teams have been looking for edges. Traditional powerhouse college teams tended to favor good offensive lines, good running game, and solid QB play to pair with a strong defense. Their offensive schemes tend to be more similar to those of NFL teams, so quarterbacks on these teams with NFL potential (physical and technical ability) are highly sought after, with teams believing they can transition best to NFL teams. However, not every team in college can have this type of talent, so teams run "gimmicky" offenses that allow them to win some games. Texas Tech under Mike Leach was famous for the Air Raid offense, which was a spread offense predicated along spacing of playmakers on the outside and accurate QBs (often lacking top-level NFL arm and other physical attributes). It led to some crazy stat lines, but those QBs were never NFL caliber. The team lacked NFL talent compared to other schools but had good seasons. But more schools started to embrace some of these aspects of the spread and Air Raid offenses to bolster their play, regardless of talent level. This ended up with more NFL-caliber QBs playing in these kinds of offenses all over. It also led to quarterbacks that may have not been NFL-ready at all (e.g. those that run a lot) be given opportunities in easy pass-friendly offenses to hone their passing skills.
It led to an interesting phenomenon among QB talents (to name a few below);
-Jared Goff (air raid at Cal)
-Pat Mahomes (air raid at Texas Tech)
-Colin Kaepernick (pistol offense at Nevada)
-Baker Mayfield (air raid at Texas Tech and Oklahoma)
-Kyler Murray (air raid at Oklahoma)
-Jalen Hurts (air raid at Oklahoma)
-Mitchell Trubisky (didn't take snaps under center at UNC)
-Joe Burrow (a Joe Brady-designed spread offense using LSU's top-tier talent to form mismatches and taking full advantage of option plays)
These guys have NFL talent, but they didn't play in your conventional offense. So what do you do? Well, the NFL has been pushing the "QB whisperer" coaches very hard. Teams have to develop QBs, so they look for coaches that can work with these QBs to get the most out of their talent. Expecting them to be able to play like game managers from the early 2000s while the team runs the ball for 3 yards on first down every series is not realistic (in 2000, there were 23 1,000-yard rushers and in 2005, there were 10 RBs that received 300+ carries; in 2017 and 2018, fewer than 10 1000-yard rushers and only 1 RB that received 300+ carries each year; those numbers did see an uptick in 2019). Many of these QBs don't even have much experience as passers at the collegiate level. So teams have to meet them halfway: to continue to develop their skills while simultaneously making them as comfortable early on as possible. The Cardinals hiring Kliff Kingsbury is the most extreme example of this. He himself played at Texas Tech years ago and is well-versed in spread/air raid concepts. As a college coach, he was known for his work with offenses and QBs, having worked with Case Keenum, Johnny Manziel, Baker Mayfield, Davis Webb, and Pat Mahomes. However, as a head coach at Texas Tech, he wasn't particularly good. He had a losing record and was let go. He had accepted the USC offensive coordinator job but then immediately resigned and took the Cardinals job. There's nothing that indicates that he is qualified to be an NFL coach, except his work with QBs. With Kyler Murray as the likely #1 pick, the Cardinals wanted a coach that knew how to get the best out of Air Raid QBs, so they gambled on a mediocre college head coach.
But this isn't too different to what Sean McVay did with Goff (scheming guys open for him), or Harbaugh getting Kaepernick comfortable (Niners running some of the plays he ran at Nevada), or Doug Pedersen getting Carson Wentz (coming from a FCS school) comfortable by utilizing the RPO (run-pass option). NFL teams are now happy to line up in the Shotgun, spreading the field, utilizing backs, tight ends, etc as receivers, not using full-backs, etc. You can find the right coach first and then have them pick the QB or go the other way. Just get a match.
Matching the quarterback to the right system (implemented by the right coach) makes QB selection better (hopefully), and will lead to success identification and development of other talent around him.
This also goes for the defense, but I'm way out of date on that. All I know is that the 3-4 defense used to be a pain to draft for as few colleges ever ran that defense. It required a nose tackle not as a rusher but as someone that takes on blocks in the middle of the 3 with two other DL that also mostly sucked up blocks to free linebackers to play the run and rush the QB. A lot of college DL didn't fit this at all, so finding the right players could be difficult.
-Injuries
As part of any evaluation and hopefully success story, there's always the chance of injuries derailing everything. Players could pick up all kinds of injuries in high school and college, and you hope they can put them behind them. But it's never that easy. For example, Curtis Martin suffered multiple long-term injuries in college. People worried about his durability and physical prowess, especially in the late 90s era of power football. He ended up being a 3rd round pick as a result of injury worries but had ten straight 1,000 yard seasons to begin his Hall of Fame career. Willis McGahee tore his ACL, MCL, and PCL in a nasty injury in his final collegiate game. The Bills took a chance on him in the late first round even with the injury and him missing a chunk of his rookie season. He ended up with almost 10,000 yards from scrimmage. On the other hand, Jahvid Best, who was explosive at Cal in college, had some injury issues, especially with a concussion. He ended up suffering concussions early in his NFL career and was forced to retire early. There are also players with clean injury records in college and that end up having injury prone careers.
Given the typical short NFL career, the relative lack of games in a season, and the need for smooth transitions and development early in one's career, injuries end up being huge problems. Teams that evaluate players have to think about risks and how they might mitigate them.
-Actual Ability and Matching it to Production
It can be hard to evaluate college games when there are major levels of talent disparity. Does a player look good because his team is filled with top-tier talent and many of his opponents' teams are not? What about hidden gems at smaller schools where they're NFL-caliber but their teammates are not? What about lower divisions like FCS? How does one even evaluate performances when they're playing with or against almost no NFL-caliber players? NFL teams will look at the physical profile (have to have NFL physicality) and then the technical and mental aspects (to take a page out of FM). But is there ability affected by the talent level of teammates and coaches? How do we account for that? It can be hard. Josh Allen, Jordan Love, Ben Roethlisberger, etc played at smaller schools in weaker FBS conferences, and they didn't always have the best numbers. Some great seasons but also some not so great years. But they have NFL physical traits. If they also have good footwork, throwing mechanics, etc, maybe they were held back by less-than-stellar talent around them? Their teams didn't necessarily have talent advantages either. Or maybe technique issues can be fixed at the NFL level. There's also Carson Wentz, who played at NDSU, the most dominant FCS team. They've routinely beaten FBS teams. Clearly the playing level of the team is high, but most of their normal competition are FCS teams that are significantly worse. So is Wentz putting up good numbers because his team is just better? It's like the Alabama question of the FCS (players on those teams producing great numbers because of the talent level difference between them and their opponents). NFL teams have events like the Senior Bowl (to evaluate players in practices and in-game situations), the combine (the physical and mental side), and pro days (showing off physical traits and technique) to try to get a sense of the talent level. They can look for college games where these players occasionally played against very good teams (maybe as underdogs) to see how they handle it. But context still matters (if their O-Line is overmatched, the QB just won't look good).
There's also the aspect of college life and coaching. It takes time to adjust to college life from high school. College coaches aren't academy coaches and as much as they want to brag about developing NFL talent properly, they still have to win. So they'll won't always make decisions like a U-18 coach would. And that adds a layer to decipher for NFL teams. A case for this: Alvin Kamara and Trent Richardson
Alvin Kamara was a highly-touted high school player that went to Alabama. But he ran into issues early in his time at Alabama (injuries and off the field problems) and ended up at a junior college. He eventually transferred back into the SEC at Alabama's rivals, Tennessee. But Tennessee has been an underperforming power for years and Kamara's coach, Butch Jones, didn't end up lasting long at the job. Kamara had two seasons at Tennessee where he split carries with another back. He was always productive when he played, but his numbers overall weren't eye-popping: 2,000 yards from scrimmage over 2 years. The talent is there, but you can see the question marks: Does he have character issues? Does he have durability issues, hence the timeshare? Why didn't he take over the job if he was productive when he played? He ended up a third round pick, but he fit in brilliantly in New Orleans, which no surprise, had stability at head coach and QB. He went into a great situation, split time with Mark Ingram (an arrangement he was used to) before taking the lead role and being a top 5 RB at the NFL level. He has far outproduced what you'd expect after his time at Tennessee. He might've only been a third-round pick, but it was a great situation for him.
Trent Richardson, a few years earlier, was also a star coming out of high school. He got some playing time backing up Mark Ingram (funnily enough), before having a monster junior season: 2,000 yards from scrimmage in one year. Called a sure-thing and top pick, everyone was wowed by him. Yet, he was drafted by the Browns, traded to the Colts, and never came close to being an elite back. His vision as a running back was heavily criticized.
So, how did the scouts get it so wrong? Kamara's a better receiver (even limited time in college can show that), but why was Richardson a consensus top pick in his year and Kamara relegated to third round in his year? Injuries? Character concerns? Production? All kinds of questions. Richardson ticked a lot of boxes, but it's clear he was flawed as a runner. But did those flaws manifest itself in the NFL because of the situations he was in? Or were they always there at Alabama but he was covered by his talented offensive line? Did scouts notice his problems in college and thought they could be corrected? For Kamara, was he held back by his stop-start college career? Did Butch Jones under-utilize him? Or maybe if they had different situations in the NFL, it could've turned out differently?
A more contemporary comparison could be Derrick Henry, who was drafted the year before Kamara. Henry in his junior year at Alabama ran for 2,219 yards (that's insane) on 395 carries (also insane) in a 15-game season. He even had a game with 46 carries. He wasn't a great receiver (still isn't). He was a second-round pick. Did scouts worry about his durability given his workload? His size (really big for a running back)? His lack of receiving ability coming into a pass-heavy league? His great offensive line at Alabama that can dominate the opposition? Some people were skeptical of Henry (perhaps burned by Richardson a few years earlier). But the Titans took their time giving him chances, and now he's a very good NFL player. Was it the friendly situation in Tennessee? If Henry had gone to a dysfunctional team and was expected to carry the load right away, could he have gone the same way as Richardson? Bereft of confidence and baffling loss of ability? Or was he always destined for stardom because he's just good at running the football while Richardson just isn't?
Is it possible that if Kamara ended up on the current version of the Jets, Henry on the Browns, and Richardson on the Steelers, that their careers would've completely been different? Or is it as simple as Kamara good, Henry good, and Richardson bad? If so, how did the scouts miss it? If a really good team with a good GM and good coach had the opportunity to draft Richardson, would they have done it too, or would they have known?
There's always credit to well-run teams, but maybe everyone misses things, and occasionally, even good teams could be very wrong (and they are). But they can do better overall than the poorly-run teams.
In conclusion of all nonsense I've written, I do think the organizational structure and stability at head coach can make the difference in talent evaluation (and stability at QB for drafting offense). It provides a structure for players to have success. Coaches and systems have to match the talent you're bringing in. The QB position is the crown jewel and especially deserves the most thinking an organization needs to do for making the right moves. Other positions will require similar thought. Constantly transitioning in a chaotic situation will inevitably lead to draft picks failing, not necessarily because of the player being bad, but because of the negative environment for development. Teams will have to evaluate players, taking into account injuries, ability, production, and other factors for fit. Teams that are better run should have the upper hand in ensuring smooth transitions to the league. But there's always mis-evaluations. Good teams, on the whole, tend to do better avoiding those. Or have found their franchise QBs so they can muck about in the draft for a few years and still be competitive. Bad teams, on the other hand, need to fix organizational issues along with talent evaluation issues to improve. Sometimes, they hit on the right coach and combine it with an existing QB/squad and it works for them. Other times, they have build from the ground up, and it's long process. Easier said than done though.
